Session 1: Synoptic Seminar
Kai Akagi, Rikkyo University, ‘Jesus the Physician and the Use of Hosea in Matthew 9:12–13’
The quotation of Hosea 6:6 in Matthew 9:13, absent from the Markan and Lukan parallels, has seemed to be awkwardly juxtaposed to Jesus’s saying about a physician in Matthew 9:12. Thus the evaluations of Klostermann (1927) that the quotation “zerreißt den Zusammenhang” of Jesus’s words and of Luz (1990) that it is “recht störend und sprengt den Kontext” have been maintained by many. Others, such as France (2007) and Evans (2012), while less concerned about the seeming tension between verses 12 and 13, still do not comment on the significance of the designation of Jesus specifically as a “physician” in relation to Hosea’s language and theology. Interacting with Ribbens’ (2018) study of the function of the two quotations of Hosea 6:6 in Matthew in view of hesed in the wider context of Hosea, this paper will propose that Matthew’s use of Hosea 6:6 in Matthew 9:13 draws from themes of metaphorical illness and healing in the wider context of Hosea to perform multiple functions. (a) It presents Jesus as rebuking the Pharisees by comparing them with those in Hosea who, although adhering to sacrifice and crying out to God, have neglected righteousness and hesed / eleos without realizing their own illness. (b) It additionally provides ethical instruction to the audience by connecting Hosea’s instruction concerning “righteousness” to that in Matthew. (c) Finally, it presents Jesus as the physician who accomplishes Yahweh’s “healing” of those who have sinned against him in Hosea in accordance with Matthew’s Christology.
Francis Cousins, Atlantic Technological University, St Angela’s, ‘Colliding Kingdoms: How the Kingdom of heaven subverts Roman imperialism in the Gospel of Matthew’
Roman presence and imperial ideology were omnipresent in first century Palestine and Antioch, serving as a constant reminder of Roman sovereignty. In this context, Matthew’s Gospel functions as a counter-narrative, a work of resistance, establishing an alternative community. The Gospel opposes Roman imperialism and sustains a community of disciples and their practices in anticipation of the coming triumph of God’s basileia. As contemporary kingdoms (using crusader language) seek to impose their power and might on others, it is ever more necessary to demonstrate how the portrayal of the kingdom, and living a life in service of the reign of heaven, challenges the view that might is right. Building on the work of Warren Carter, this paper demonstrates how reading Matthew through this lens offers both a theological and social challenge to the power of Rome, rejecting claims that the emperor is the one who mediates the gods’ blessing to the world, while seeking to create an inclusive community rooted in loving service of others.
Session 2
Will Loescher (Independent Researcher), ‘Luke’s distinctive kingdom of God’
Much has been written in an attempt to define the kingdom of God. My paper highlights possible areas of exploratory research in Luke’s overall distinctive contribution. This builds on recent studies of Cho (2003), Hahn (2005), Kim (2008), Thomas (2011), Morphew (2011); Bock (2012), Kuhn (2015); Naiker (2016), and Leung (2026). In particular I focus on how Luke’s Gospel presents the kingdom’s literary shape (39 refs) as a journey with over half (22 refs) being in 9:51–18:30; historical shape as a past, present, and primarily future reign (19:11; 22:16, 18; 22:29, 30); geographical shape as a realm that is first announced at Nazareth (1:33), appears in Judea and Galilee (4:43), on the journey towards Jerusalem, but never arrives there; theological shape with over half (20) being unique Lukan refs, some being in different contexts, a focus on spiritual aspects (17:20, 21; 18:16, 17; 23:42), divine revelation with parables (8:10; 13:18, 20), and a sense of progression; prayer shape as a declaration of God’s kingship (11:2); warfare shape with exorcisms as a demonstration of the kingdom’s triumph (11:20); eschatological shape which allows for both Israel and the church (1:32–33; 22:29–30); Messianic shape with Jesus as king ironically in contrast to earthly kings (22:25–27) and mocked as king of the Jews although this links it to the cross (23:3, 37, 38); and ultimately mission shape in both gospel proclamation (8:1; 16:16) and healings (9:2, 11; 10:9) affirmed by the strategic placements of the kingdom in Acts’ literary shape. I welcome the opportunity to review material from a draft chapter of my forthcoming book, Foundation for Transformation by the Spirit and the Word: A Literary Exploration of Luke’s Gospel. In order to allow plenty of time for discussion I will circulate the full paper in advance and only give a brief presentation of the main points.
Tyler Brown, Keble College, University of Oxford, ‘The Comings of Israel’s Lord in Luke 9:51–19:44: The Journey to Jerusalem as a Proleptic Parousia’
This paper rereads the Lucan Journey to Jerusalem (9:51–19:44) contra the post-Conzelmann paradigm, arguing that intertextual networks at the Journey’s boundaries frame it as a proleptic Parousia. Allusions are tested by a combination of Hays’ and Allison’s criteria, especially distinctiveness, recurrence, volume, and enhanced meaning. Three clusters illustrate:
- The Zech 14/Olivet inclusio: Luke brackets the Journey with recurrent and coherent Zech 14 Mount-of-Olives theophany allusions: verbally and thematically at 9:26–27 (“coming” with “holy ones/angels”; “kingdom” discourse; Zech 14:4–5, 9), with the Transfiguration as a Parousia foretaste on another mountaintop (9:28–36); then topographically at 19:29, 37–38 and Acts 1:11–12.
- The Mal 3 LXX / Elijah network: Luke transposes Mal 3:1’s syntactically distinctive πρὸ προσώπου [κυρίου] to Jesus (9:51–53; 10:1), framing the Journey as a divine visitation (19:44; 1:68, 78). Luke simultaneously patterns Jesus’s ἀνάλημψις on Elijah’s (9:51; Acts 1:2, 11; cf. 2 Kgs 2:9–11 LXX), thus anticipating Jesus’s return at the ἀποκατάστασις in “times of refreshing ἀπὸ προσώπου κυρίου” (Acts 3:20–21; see Mal 3:23 LXX; cf. Mark 9:12). Trading on the distinctive Lucan κύριος-ambiguity (e.g. Luke 1:43, 46; Acts 2:21, 34, 36), this allusive network enhances meaning and links the Journey’s opening to both the ascension and the second coming.
- The Ps 117:26 LXX promise: The promised blessing at 13:35 of the one “coming” in the κύριος-Name (a “loud-volume” allusion) is proleptically fulfilled at 19:38, awaiting completion in Jerusalem at the Parousia.
These dual horizons account for the Journey’s striking concentration of vigilance, reversal, banqueting, and contingency pericopes.
Session 3
Hans Johan Sagrusten, MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society, ‘The Historical Present in Mark and the Life of Aesop: Narrative Function in Vernacular Storytelling’
Biblical scholarship has largely overlooked a narrative that employs the historical present with unusual frequency in comparison to other Greek prose: the Life of Aesop. This paper offers a comparative analysis of the high frequency of the historical present in the Gospel of Mark and the Life of Aesop, arguing that the historical present functions as a narrative marker in both texts. Building on accounts such as Rodney J. Decker, the study understands the historical present as a transition marker in discourse: marking the beginning of new paragraphs, introducing new participants, and marking geographic shifts in the story. Comparison with the Life of Aesop, however, brings to the foreground an additional function in the Gospel of Mark: the use of the historical present to highlight certain dramatic narratives and key Christological scenes. The paper argues that Mark uses the discourse function of the historical present to highlight important miracle narratives and theologically significant episodes, offering insights that deepens the understanding of the role of the historical present in Greek vernacular storytelling.
Edmund Yiu-ming Leung, Chinese Mission Seminary, ‘The Degree of Ambiguity: The Characterisation of the Divine-Human Identity of Jesus in the Narrative Worlds of Mark and Matthew’
This presentation argues that, from a narratological perspective, the narrators of the Gospel of Mark and Matthew deliberately introduce varying degrees of ambiguity in characterising the divine-human identity of Jesus. Recent biblical studies on Christology continue to uphold the dichotomy of human-divine nature in the portrayal of Jesus within the canonical Gospels. Although Michael Bird (2024), for example, has considered the fluidity of divinity in the ancient context, the inclination towards an unambiguous divine-human model potentially overlooks the dynamic characterisation of Jesus within the narrative arcs of Mark and Matthew. This is particularly pertinent as character studies have evolved beyond static understanding to embrace a more diverse characterisation (Bennema 2014; Malbon 2009; cf. Rhoads et al. 2012). By examining, from a narratological standpoint, several accounts of their narratives (e.g., Mark 1:2–3; 4:35–41; 10:17–22; 16:1–8; cf. Matt 3:2–3; 8:23–27; 19:16–22; 28:16–21) as case studies, I propose that the narrators of Mark and Matthew intentionally portray the divine-human identity of Jesus with different degrees of ambiguity. Subsequently, their characterisations create a rhetorical force that destabilises the implied readers’ perceptions of the divine-human nature of Jesus, thereby prompting them to reflect on how Jesus’ identity shapes the early Christian communities.